Re: So here it is one year later...
wayne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In <C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEF8F@mou1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email protected]> writes: >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of wayne > >> Despite asking several times on the MASS mailing list, I have >> yet to see any data on the false positive rates for DK, IIM, >> William's DK-IIM merged system, CSV, or SES. [...] > > They certainly work better in certain circumstances, but at this point I > would not want to publish any data because I don't know how typical those > circumstances and in any case the issue is irrelevant. I can certainly believe this. > DK and SPF have different failure modes. I don't think this is a competition > situation. A system with both schemes is much more effective than either on > its own. I completely, 100% agree and I can not emphisized this enough. I see things like SPF and crypto systems as complementary systems, not competing systems. I'm sorry I forgot to mention that. -wayne